Idiots wanting to lower the drinking age...

I heard, recently, about a band of college presidents wanted to lobby to get the national drinking age lowered from 21 to 18, citing that it would hinder binge drinking. It got a little national coverage, but largely was dismissed as colleges wanting to get out of lawsuits.

I dismissed it as well...until I read an article by Evansville Courier and Press staff writer, John Lucas. Lucas, whose article Discourse On Lowering Drinking Age Not Bad Idea, stacks several arguements together...finishing with the ages old, but still severely lacking, arguement of, "I did it, and I'm alive".

I'm trying like the dickens to restrain myself from personal attacks, as they never advance an arguement, so let's take a look into the issue. First at hand...who's leading the charge and what do they stand to gain by lowering the drinking age?

College Presidents are leading the charge. What do they stand to gain? Less responsibility of their students...aka less lawsuits. Let's be clear...Colleges are run like businesses...they are seeking a maximum profit and school ranking. By in large, they don't really care about the students at all. If they did, they wouldn't stack their staffs with mostly liberal leaning professors and allow students to have a wide range of knowledge and resources available to them. When I say a staff of mostly liberal professors, we aren't talking like 55-60% of the staff...we are talking 75-80% or more. There are your few exceptions, sure, but in most colleges, more than three-quarters of what they learn will be from one perspective. Does that sound like an institution invested in providing the best, most well-rounded education possible?? Ummm...no.

Is there anyone else leading the charge? Not that I know of. If they are, ironically enough, they are liberal minded. No limitations on personal freedom...so when we raise a country of alcoholics, the government can pay for their healthcare to rehab them.

So back to Mr. John Lucas. The man is clearly a liberal, for in his article he states...in a fascistic manner...that "And although teetotalers - and those of like mind who would prohibit consumption of fats, carbohydrates, nicotine, caffeine, animal pelts and pornography - are loathe to admit it, there's a certain logic to what the professors are saying."

If you don't agree with the professors...you're automatically a "teetotaler". And to link lowering the drinking age to being anti-pornography???

But the part that hit me the most is when Mr. Lucas said, "In our society, drinking alcohol is a rite of passage. It ranks right up there with getting a driver's license, smoking and having sex. Guys, especially, prove how big they are by bragging about how much they can drink..."

Well, Mr. John Lucas of Evansville's Courier and Press, none of the people I hung out with felt that way about alcohol. And IF drinking is a rite of passage, as you say, it's because you and your generation didn't stand up and condemn it. You were too weak to notice something that hindered young adults more than it helped them, and if you did, you were do weak to do something about it.

To the other "experts" that say it would prevent excess drinking in college age kids. To what cost?? At the cost of creating excess drinking to 14 year-olds who will just get the 18 year-old senior in high school to throw a kegger party. That's nice...pass the problem on to a younger generation.